The state must continue down the same path it charted in Gaza and proceed to the West Bank, the illegal outposts, the tiny settlements, the lawbreakers.

A brigadier general who was stripped of his ranks by Dreyfus' judges adorned with skullcaps; yellow patches with Jewish stars; a child who was almost thrown from the window, and an Israeli flag that was incinerated like a piece of garbage; the smell of the breath of sweaty female settlers who approached so close to the mouths of soldiers - almost to the point of sin; and a battery of curses fired at the soldiers and police, curses that would poison if they could.

This was the daily narrative of the "summary of events of day four," a day to be etched in memory. The day when tens of thousands of male and female soldiers, most of whom had never seen a settlement from the inside and others who had only guarded them during their military service, began to detest the settlement enterprise. Not on a nationalist basis, not for ideological reasons, but because of the intimacy that demanded another soldier's tear.

The swallowing of saliva, the gnashing of teeth and the self-restraint should not mislead anyone. The soldiers carry out directives and implement briefings they have received from advisers only in order to get through the day of hurt in peace. The post-traumatic disability will remain irreversible.

But this is the only irrevocable result this disengagement will produce. Because the uprooting of settlements and the removal of settlers from the occupied territory essentially means the shattering of the theory of irrevocability, the same theory that has accompanied the settlement enterprise from the start.

According to this theory, every antenna, outpost or tent could never be removed. This was the intoxicating drug that gave impetus to the building of more and more settlements. This narrative was the essence of the successful guidebook the settlers composed for themselves. They were not merely building settlements, but settlements that could never be uprooted. Thus, each outpost becomes a sacred place, a security facility, an integral part of the nation's soul. And every uprooting means civil war. Without this fearful threat, it would be difficult to imagine the spread of the settlement enterprise. It was a war about the irreversible.

And this persuasion succeeded beyond expectation. It is impossible to imagine such large financial investments in the settlements - not only by the government but also by businessmen - without a profound perception of their permanence. This is the same perception that finds no distinction between the status of Tel Aviv and Ganei Tal. Removing either of them would mean the end of the State of Israel. Even the cloak of pioneering and "fidelity to the homeland" was stretched, and sometimes stolen, from Israel to the occupied territories. Because the principle of irrevocability cannot exist without legitimization and if there is none to be found at home, then it can be appropriated from the Israeli neighbor.

Everything worked so well. Yesha was here, the State of Israel was there. The intifada served as an excellent guarantee and symbol of steadfastness in the face of terror, because moving any mobile home would be considered an act of surrender to the murderers. And the blood, the casualties and the siege - all ensured a secure future. Anyone who spoke of reversing the situation seemed to be like the fool from Shimon Peres' parable who tries to turn omelettes into eggs. But there seems to be some sort of national instinct that operates when something seems very incorrect and very opposed to the state's capability and logic. Because, suddenly, an earthquake occurs.

The pain is so much greater because it is accompanied by a deep affront. The shattering of the principle of irrevocability comes from none other than a captive and tamed government and a prime minister who signed the policy entitled, "It was and will never be again."

And now everything is suddenly reversible. It was and will be again. The "tragedy" is even greater because it suddenly becomes clear that the logic that dismantled the Gaza settlements also applies to the West Bank settlements. The military capability that operated in the Gaza Strip can immediately be transferred to the West Bank. The fears that drove the state are also reversible: no civil war or military mutiny. Only curses, nails and oil.

This is precisely the time for the state to continue down the same path it charted in Gaza and proceed to the West Bank, the illegal outposts, the tiny settlements, the lawbreakers - even the state's fear of the settlements can be reversed.

To get the latest from HaaretzFollow @HaaretzomLike us on Facebook and get articles directly in your news feed

Dear Danite,
Thanks for reminding me of Ben Duncklman. I now remember the situation more or less. Duncklman's memory was not perfect either. What happened was that, as he remembered, there were very strict orders not to loot or hurt the local population. This he carried out very well. He later received an order from a commanding officer to expel the locals, which he refused. Good for him. BG actually visited Nazareth some 2 weeks (if my memory is right) AFTER Nazareth was taken. At that time he asked Dunklman "why did you not expel them"? That was some rhetorical question which perhaps revealed BG's inner desires but NOT POLICY. The policy was to protect Nazareth (because of its special meaning to Christianity), and this was inconsistent with expulsion, as everybody will understand.
I read about this in some recent book in Hebrew, by Mordechai L. I don't remember the last name, only the initial. M.L. went thru BG's diary to figure this problem out.
Always a pleasure, Danite.

The road runs straight from Haifa to Jenin. No need for Jenin to be "Yuden-frei" any more. That town should be redeveloped on the Haifa model, with Jews and Arabs living together there in peace. If enough money is pumped in to such a project, everyone will benefit.

"Especially, given the fact the 1967 war was a bluff and nothing more than a pre-emptive measure by Israel to grab more Arab land."
I can appreciate that you may mean well, but your (quoted) claim about the 67 war is just plain wrong.
Nasser was the megalonmaniac, a Pan-Arabist who unified the commands of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria in an attempt to remove the Israeli "cancer" from the greater Arab world. He ordered the UN forces removed from the Sinai peninsula. UN secretary U Thant complied with indecent haste. Nasser moved huge quantities of armor in Sinai in an offensive posture. He openly threatened Israel, and Israel was at a severe numerical disadvantage in terms of soldiers, armor, and planes. Nobody could have predicted the course of the war in advance but Israeli diplomats flew to London and Washington to negotiate the numbers of refugees each western country would absorb from the soon-to-be-ex-state-of-Israel. Nasser then closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, in clear violation of international maritime law. This was the casus belli. Israel's subsequent pre-emptive attack on June 6 was an act of self defense.
Even on the seventh day, Israel had no intention of holding the occupied territories. Rather they were supposed to be a bargaining chip in peace negotiations. But that never came. Instead the Arab league met at Khartoum and went on the record with the infamous "Three Noes" - no peace, no negotiations, no recognition.
Those are the facts.

Bob# 322: There are internationally recognized borders of Israel, only armistice lines or green lines as opposed to blue lines which signify permanent borders. The only internationally recognized borders of Israel were the 'Partition' borders of 1947. It was TO this fact to which I addressed my earlier post(#129).However, Resolution 242 o 1967, nullified the partition border when it told Israel to "withdraw from territories of recent conflict". This leaving thecocept vague because it didn't say "from THE territories", leaving room for negotiation of "secure and recognized boundaries".
To Jeremy#253: you are wrong, Jordan did not occupy the West bank illegally. In December 1950, the was a conference of East Bank and West Bank leader, who included King Abdallah I, and for the Palestinian side Sheikh Ali Jabari of Hebron and Anwar Nusseibah from Jerusalem and others that took place in Jericho. There it was decided to merger the East Bank and the West Bank under the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

how you decide to view us that live in
israel is your business.
how you decide to make excuses is your
business.
a few years ago the germans where herding
jews into cattle trucks and the jews were
telling them that they were german citizens
i have no interest in your opinions as
they are irrelevant - we are not the dutch
we are not able to live with our neighbours
as you do - but there our neighbours would
if they could
you can give away what ever you like - i
am not prepared to do the same
you know nothing of this land
bm
bm

You seem to be working under a basic illusion regarding Judaism - that a knowledge of Judaism can be gained from reading the Hebrew Bible. In reality, Jewish law is not based solely on the word of what you call "the Old Testament" in your post. Take, for example, the well-known but poorly understood passage about "an eye for an eye". In point of fact, Jewish law interprets the passage as dealing with *monetary* compensation for bodily injury, not the literal punishment in kind of the offender. Christianity and Judaism do have important differences, but they don't go as far as your post would have it.

I WANT EXACT VERSES Khalid, not deduction in your own words.
The Jewish eye for an eye was invented by the crhistians, because in Jewish it means the same as in Christianity: one need to compensate not to revenge. Read your bible and do not be stubborn. This is just replacement theory. One day, christians who rejct the OT will face Jesus, this is where they believe in, and then they will be asked what they did with their elthern brothers, the Jews. Read Romans where it is said not to boost on Jews and read Romans 28:11

I made the same point in a letter published in the Jerusalem Report a few months ago. I haven't heard serious rebuttal. Simply announcing that the army and security services are leaving by a certain date would have have many advantages:
1. Prevent the clash between security services and settlers.
2. Place the responsibility for sticking or quitting where it rightfully belongs: on the shoulders of the settlers themselves.
3. Shifting the ball to the Palestinians' court: let them prove to the world that they are not racist by permitting Jews to stay in Gaza.
Instead we got this circus.
By the way, I live on a kibbutz adjacent to the Jordanian border. Our agricultural lands lie east of the lowest line in the Arava valley, ie: Jordan. Before the signing of the peace treaty in 1994, we decided (on the record) that if it came down to it, we would relocate rather than impede the peace treaty. In the end a deal was worked out between Yitzhak Rabin and King Hussein whereby there was an exchange of territory up and down the Arava, and we kept our fields and our homes.
Encouraging, is it not?

Tulip, Christianity is based on brotherhood in Christ...that is why Paul rejected the Jewish concept of circumcision and found the concept of spiritual circumcision.
Indeed, what need there would be for the New Testament if Christians were to be governed by the Old Testament?
Indeed, Jesus and Paul rejected the OT rules of an eye for an eye ....etc. In Judaism, an adulterous woman or man is stoned to death...in Christianity..."let those who are without a sin cast the first stone..!!!"
Judaism and Christianity hold contradictory views and philosophies...
The Judeo-Christian ethics is a myth..since the ethics espoused by both are conspicuously incompatible...
Khalid

i wish bar'el would not be in such a hurry.this is now the time for a strategic pause.
let the outsiders who made this area their business know slowly that everything is on the table and let them imbibe the fact that it is in the interest of this area that the peoples should be divided.
let the world come and accept a solution whereby kfar kassem,tira,um al fahm,bartaa and the wadi ara region should be attached to the new palestinian state.the settlements blocs would in turn be attached to israel.
this is not a matter of choice for the above towns but part of a whole and strategic deal.
there may then be a possibility that we will have a quiet future.
the above is the best solution but a quiet future? i dont believe that will ever happen.

I'm with you girl, sign me up!! Does that mean we also get to sh#$t all over whoever's there now if they don't believe in our God, too?? : )
Thanks for the laugh. For another good one, check out: http://www.venganza.org One man's cheeky way of dealing with the religious-right's desire to teach creationism- their God style- in the Kansas schools.

Sir, you wrote
CHRISTIANITY WA S ENTIRELY A JEWISH SECT UNTIL AROUND 360 AD WHEN IT BECAME SOLELY A GENTILE BELIEF
The last time I saw you writing about persecution of Jews by Christians you mentioned that it lasts already 1800 years. Please follow the logic of your own statement and be kind to shorten this period to at least 1600 years.

I know there are Jews that have the same opinion as I. As long as the Jews of Israel think they are more human and have more rights than non-Jews, and believe they can do whatever they please with land that doesn't belong to them, I couldn't care less about them. I just feel sorry for their children, whose parents made the choice for them to forever live in a war zone.
"every jew in this land
knows that the fight will be forever"
Only because you make it so.

I want your comments on this:
1)We can not meet for you live in the USA and I in Israel.
2)I want you to give me the exact verse of the bible where it is said that christians are not governed by the NT.
3)I want you to write it down on this Haaretz board so all christians, jews and muslims can read it.
4)Do not link to Harvard, because that is distraction. I want YOU to write the verses down.
5)I know Harvard theologians, for my dad was a theologian himself and I studied at Stanford.
Thanks,
Tulip

Nick, you are a clever boy, but it won't work. US Defender says the NT says christians are not governed by the OT. I want the exact verse.
Jesus, Paul and the gospels writers never said it was like this. Read the bible and you will not found ONE verse where it is said that the OT is over.

Haaretz.com, the online edition of Haaretz Newspaper in Israel, and analysis from Israel and the Middle East.
Haaretz.com provides extensive and in-depth coverage of Israel, the Jewish World and the Middle East, including defense, diplomacy, the Arab-Israeli conflict,
the peace process, Israeli politics, Jerusalem affairs, international relations, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip,
the Israeli business world and Jewish life in Israel and the Diaspora.